Crown of Swords and Frigates

forkliftramp.com wrote:

> isn't the major distinction between frigates and destroyers their
> role? frigates being primarily anti sub and destroyers being anti air
> or surface.

I though "Destroyer" was short for "Submarine Destroyer". It's a pretty
new class of ship (present era), while "Frigate" goes way back.
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:01:55 -0400, "Fred Burton"
<fburton.TakeThisOut@starfire.mv.com> wrote:

>
>Papatom wrote in message <54vu429994iqs3mef9egnnea7l7oa9nuas.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>...
>>I have a question first...What book contains the "the Manpower
>>Incident?"
>>
>>Second...Frigates being to small for the Star Navies of the time....
>>
>>If the RMN does antipiracy, escort, rescue (LAC crew pick up) needs
>>dispatches delivered scouting by Huamn eyes, diplomatic missions or
>>LAC Carrier escort...this is what contemporary Frigates do right now.
>>
>>As well as Frigates are really the Destroyer Escorts or Corvettes of
>>WWII. Single screw and just barely capable of keeping up, they are
>>not destroyers. Frigates are to train captains and to do all the
>>fleets scut-work. In battle we were epected to protect the carrier by
>>any mean necessary including ramming and interposing the our ship
>>between harm and the carrier. If a Frigate were to interpose itself
>>between a LASER head and a capitol ship...The crew would be heroes and
>>some damage prevented for a relatively light cost. Heck the Oliver
>>Hazard Perry Class of recent years uses a lot of automation to
>>minimize the crew casualties expected. I remember being told that my
>>life expectacy in Battle was less than three minutes.
>>
>>pops
>
>Yeah, I don't recall the orders of battle in WW2, but DDE's didn't tend to
>hang around with the fast battle fleets. They were more for convoy escort
>duty.
>
>And IIRC, they also were used for escorting CVE's, which weren't
>particularly fast either. IIRC, a few DDE's charged headlong into a force
>of Japanese BBs in one of the engagements at Leyte Gulf, a suicide run to
>get inside the gun range of the BB's and to launch their torps at close
>range. And, as I recall, a number of the DDE's were lost, but they fired
>their torps, laid down a smoke screen, and caused a lot of general havoc in
>the attacking Japanese force. And their heroic charge probably saved a lot
>of American lives, by disordering the attack and given the US forces time to
>escape and get planes into the air, etc.
>
>
>
Please forgive my error.....I meant Crown of Slaves.....

As I have said, if Manticore has a thing about Slavers and Pirates, I
frigate Squadron in Silesia would be quite fun to read about.

pops
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

Papatom wrote in message <0qhv4211ta3lllvv6ulciir7oqovrtljuv DeleteThis @4ax.com>...
>On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:01:55 -0400, "Fred Burton"
><fburton DeleteThis @starfire.mv.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Papatom wrote in message <54vu429994iqs3mef9egnnea7l7oa9nuas DeleteThis @4ax.com>...
>>>I have a question first...What book contains the "the Manpower
>>>Incident?"
>>>
>>>Second...Frigates being to small for the Star Navies of the time....
>>>
>>>If the RMN does antipiracy, escort, rescue (LAC crew pick up) needs
>>>dispatches delivered scouting by Huamn eyes, diplomatic missions or
>>>LAC Carrier escort...this is what contemporary Frigates do right now.
>>>
>>>As well as Frigates are really the Destroyer Escorts or Corvettes of
>>>WWII. Single screw and just barely capable of keeping up, they are
>>>not destroyers. Frigates are to train captains and to do all the
>>>fleets scut-work. In battle we were epected to protect the carrier by
>>>any mean necessary including ramming and interposing the our ship
>>>between harm and the carrier. If a Frigate were to interpose itself
>>>between a LASER head and a capitol ship...The crew would be heroes and
>>>some damage prevented for a relatively light cost. Heck the Oliver
>>>Hazard Perry Class of recent years uses a lot of automation to
>>>minimize the crew casualties expected. I remember being told that my
>>>life expectacy in Battle was less than three minutes.
>>>
>>>pops
>>
>>Yeah, I don't recall the orders of battle in WW2, but DDE's didn't tend to
>>hang around with the fast battle fleets. They were more for convoy escort
>>duty.
>>
>>And IIRC, they also were used for escorting CVE's, which weren't
>>particularly fast either. IIRC, a few DDE's charged headlong into a force
>>of Japanese BBs in one of the engagements at Leyte Gulf, a suicide run to
>>get inside the gun range of the BB's and to launch their torps at close
>>range. And, as I recall, a number of the DDE's were lost, but they fired
>>their torps, laid down a smoke screen, and caused a lot of general havoc
in
>>the attacking Japanese force. And their heroic charge probably saved a
lot
>>of American lives, by disordering the attack and given the US forces time
to
>>escape and get planes into the air, etc.
>>
>>
>>
>Please forgive my error.....I meant Crown of Slaves.....
>
>As I have said, if Manticore has a thing about Slavers and Pirates, I
>frigate Squadron in Silesia would be quite fun to read about.
>
>pops

It would more likely be a DD squadron, but no arguments otherwise.

Actually, given the division of Silesia between Manticore and the Andermani,
it might be interesting to have a nice novella about the new situation in
Silesia.
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

Offbreed wrote in message ...
>forkliftramp.com wrote:
>
>> isn't the major distinction between frigates and destroyers their
>> role? frigates being primarily anti sub and destroyers being anti air
>> or surface.
>
>I though "Destroyer" was short for "Submarine Destroyer". It's a pretty
>new class of ship (present era), while "Frigate" goes way back.

Yeah, "frigate" does go "way back". That said, 200 or so years ago, a
"frigate" was a seriously powerful ship. IIRC, frigates were the general
classification for ships just below the ship-of-the-line. They were the
"cruisers" of their era.

And Frigates were the largest ships in the original US Navy, i.e. the USS
Constitution, the Constellation, the Intrepid, etc. IIRC, USN frigates were
actually more heavily armed than the standard Royal Navy frigates. They may
not have been up to the "ship-of the line" standard, but they were better
than most non "Liners" (to paraphrase an Honor-ism) of their time.
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 00:38:52 GMT, forkliftramp.com
<Brian_knowspam.McDonald.TakeThisOut@shaw.ca> wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 14:07:29 GMT, Papatom <thomasb.TakeThisOut@uvic.ca> wrote:
>
>>I have a question first...What book contains the "the Manpower
>>Incident?"
>>
>>Second...Frigates being to small for the Star Navies of the time....
>>
>>If the RMN does antipiracy, escort, rescue (LAC crew pick up) needs
>>dispatches delivered scouting by Huamn eyes, diplomatic missions or
>>LAC Carrier escort...this is what contemporary Frigates do right now.
>>
>>As well as Frigates are really the Destroyer Escorts or Corvettes of
>>WWII. Single screw and just barely capable of keeping up, they are
>>not destroyers. Frigates are to train captains and to do all the
>>fleets scut-work. In battle we were epected to protect the carrier by
>>any mean necessary including ramming and interposing the our ship
>>between harm and the carrier. If a Frigate were to interpose itself
>>between a LASER head and a capitol ship...The crew would be heroes and
>>some damage prevented for a relatively light cost. Heck the Oliver
>>Hazard Perry Class of recent years uses a lot of automation to
>>minimize the crew casualties expected. I remember being told that my
>>life expectacy in Battle was less than three minutes.
>>
>>pops
>
>
>isn't the major distinction between frigates and destroyers their
>role? frigates being primarily anti sub and destroyers being anti air
>or surface. thought it was size for a while but that doesn't seem at
>all reliable in determining whether a ship is called a frigate or a
>destroyer these days.

Actually Frigates are small cheap screens, in the 70's "double-ended"
missile cruisers were called DLG's (Destroyer Leader Guided) and
called Frigates to go around Congress (kind of like the Brits Ski jump
carriers)

A Destroyer was originally a "Torpedo-Boat Destroyer"
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

Fred Burton wrote:
> Offbreed wrote in message ...
>> forkliftramp.com wrote:
>>
>
> And Frigates were the largest ships in the original US Navy, i.e. the USS
> Constitution, the Constellation, the Intrepid, etc. IIRC, USN frigates were
> actually more heavily armed than the standard Royal Navy frigates. They may
> not have been up to the "ship-of the line" standard, but they were better
> than most non "Liners" (to paraphrase an Honor-ism) of their time.
>

Yeah, the so called "Heavy Frigates" or "Super Frigates" as designed by
that Humphries fellow. 48 guns to a typical British frigate's 28 or 32,
and usually of a markedly heavier weight. The American frigates in
question also had a second gun deck, a feature which most frigates lacked.

To make things worse, they were built out of oak, which has "springier"
qualities which help it to literally repel enemy cannon fire, while
British ships were built out of a more brittle wood that tended to just
shatter inward, liberally peppering the crew with large, fast moving
wooden splinters. Add to this that American gunnery crews fired into
the hull to maximise casualties like their British naval forebearers
did, unlike French and Spanish crews who fired into the rigging to
disable a ship.

Also, the American frigates were *faster* than the smaller lighter
British frigates in many circumstances, due to a variety of things
including the more modern American designs and the amount of time since
their last refit (many of the British ships had to sail to US waters to
engage the Americans, while the Americans merely had to find a way to
get out to sea from their bases to find someone to fight).

So basically, in the War of 1812, the British navy found themselves
dealing with an enemy who was technologically more advanced, operating
closer to home, not distracted by a second larger war (the British were
at the same time fighting Napoleon and most of the rest of Europe, with
only the Russians as allies at the time). Also, it has been suggested
that the American Navy would have also had an advantage of better
motivated crews, since US Navy ships had all-volunteer crews, and
British ships had impressed crews. As the war continued though, the
British did begin to gain ground against the smaller (and oftentimes
blockaded in their ports) US Navy.

--
--Jeffrey MacHott

"Sola bona lingua est mortua lingua"
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

Offbreed wrote:
> forkliftramp.com wrote:
>
>> isn't the major distinction between frigates and destroyers their
>> role? frigates being primarily anti sub and destroyers being anti air
>> or surface.
>
> I though "Destroyer" was short for "Submarine Destroyer". It's a pretty
> new class of ship (present era), while "Frigate" goes way back.

"Frigate" as we now use it only goes back to about WWII. At various
points in history, Frigates could also be equivilant to cruisers or
battleships, depending on the definition. Apparantly the word "Frigate"
goes back to an Old English word for "Boat".

--
--Jeffrey MacHott

"Sola bona lingua est mortua lingua"
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

Don Sample wrote:
> In article <54vu429994iqs3mef9egnnea7l7oa9nuas.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>,
> Papatom <thomasb.TakeThisOut@uvic.ca> wrote:
>
>> I have a question first...What book contains the "the Manpower
>> Incident?"
>
> Which one?
>
> I think the most often referred to "Manpower Incident" is the one in
> which Helen Zilwicki was kidnapped. That story is told in "From the
> Highlands" by Eric Flint in the "Changer of Worlds" collection.
>
> There have been a couple of references to other Manpower incidents that
> haven't been written about yet, such as Harrington taking out a major
> Manpower operation in Silesea, at some time before "On Basilisk
> Station," and an assassination attempt on Cathy Montaigne that was
> stopped by Anton and the Ballroom.
>

Yeah, I think "The Manpower Incident" is Anton Zilwicki's little
adventure in Chicago, which culminated in a gunfight between Havenite
Marines and Manpower-sponsored mercenaries at the Havenite Embassy on
Earth. When people mention it, unless they're "In The Know" they
generally refer to it as a Haven-Manpower event, with some Mantie
aristos getting their very dirty laundry exposed in the process.

--
--Jeffrey MacHott

"Sola bona lingua est mortua lingua"
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 18:10:55 -0700, Offbreed <offbreed_106.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com>
allegedly declared to alt.books.david-weber...
>forkliftramp.com wrote:
>
>> isn't the major distinction between frigates and destroyers their
>> role? frigates being primarily anti sub and destroyers being anti air
>> or surface.
>
>I though "Destroyer" was short for "Submarine Destroyer". It's a pretty
>new class of ship (present era), while "Frigate" goes way back.

"Torpedo boat destroyer"; they were meant as a small, agile platform
to screen the battle line from troepdo boats.

One problem we're facing here is the evolution of names/missions of
naval units over the centuries, and MWW's decision to try to apply early
20th C. nomenclature to what started as a quasi-Nelsonian paradigm
that itself is rapidly evolving. Another problem is trying to use
'modern' ship types as one-to-one correspondance with what is in the
Honorverse; the distinction between "frigate", "destroyer", and
"cruiser" in the modern navy is getting increasingly muddled.

The sailing-era "frigate" was the equivalent of the turn-of-the-20th-
century cruiser. A Honorverse frigate strikes me as the equivalent of
a sailing era sixth-rate or 20-gun Post Ship (at a time when most navies
had moved to 5th rates or even 4th rates for screening units.)

The development of destroyer-escorts, corvettes, frigates, etc. for
anti-submarine work is based on the need for as many sensor platforms
as possible as quickly as possible as economically as possible; crew
requirements weren't really an issue, unlike the bottleneck faced by
the RMN BuPers. Also, there is no corresponding "submarine" threat in
the Honorverse. (Relatively short-ranged, very powerful offensive
capability, extremely stealthy, generally immue to most 'conventional'
ttack modes.)

The anti-LAC and missile-defense missions have been discussed ad
nauseum and may or may not result in their own specialized units
analogous to modern air-defense platforms, but that's another mega-
thread.

The reason why most 'advanced' Honorverse space navies abandoned
Frigates in favor of destroyers is that a frigate requires almost the
same logistical requirements of a DD in terms of personnel and support
capacity, but with only 75% or so of the capability. If *all* you are
worried about is piracy suppression, then it may be practical to
build frigates, but given all the missions required of small hyper-
capable combatants, destroyers are a better all-around buy.

--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) quirk @ swcp.com
Just an article detector on the Information Supercollider.
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

"Fred Burton" <fburton.TakeThisOut@starfire.mv.com> wrote in message
news:e2pc4i$ccf$1@pyrite.mv.net...
>
> Papatom wrote in message <0qhv4211ta3lllvv6ulciir7oqovrtljuv.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>...
>>On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:01:55 -0400, "Fred Burton"
>><fburton.TakeThisOut@starfire.mv.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Papatom wrote in message <54vu429994iqs3mef9egnnea7l7oa9nuas.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>...
>>>>I have a question first...What book contains the "the Manpower
>>>>Incident?"
>>>>
>>>>Second...Frigates being to small for the Star Navies of the time....
>>>>
>>>>If the RMN does antipiracy, escort, rescue (LAC crew pick up) needs
>>>>dispatches delivered scouting by Huamn eyes, diplomatic missions or
>>>>LAC Carrier escort...this is what contemporary Frigates do right now.
>>>>
>>>>As well as Frigates are really the Destroyer Escorts or Corvettes of
>>>>WWII. Single screw and just barely capable of keeping up, they are
>>>>not destroyers. Frigates are to train captains and to do all the
>>>>fleets scut-work. In battle we were epected to protect the carrier by
>>>>any mean necessary including ramming and interposing the our ship
>>>>between harm and the carrier. If a Frigate were to interpose itself
>>>>between a LASER head and a capitol ship...The crew would be heroes and
>>>>some damage prevented for a relatively light cost. Heck the Oliver
>>>>Hazard Perry Class of recent years uses a lot of automation to
>>>>minimize the crew casualties expected. I remember being told that my
>>>>life expectacy in Battle was less than three minutes.
>>>>
>>>>pops
>>>
>>>Yeah, I don't recall the orders of battle in WW2, but DDE's didn't tend
>>>to
>>>hang around with the fast battle fleets. They were more for convoy
>>>escort
>>>duty.
>>>
>>>And IIRC, they also were used for escorting CVE's, which weren't
>>>particularly fast either. IIRC, a few DDE's charged headlong into a
>>>force
>>>of Japanese BBs in one of the engagements at Leyte Gulf, a suicide run to
>>>get inside the gun range of the BB's and to launch their torps at close
>>>range. And, as I recall, a number of the DDE's were lost, but they fired
>>>their torps, laid down a smoke screen, and caused a lot of general havoc
> in
>>>the attacking Japanese force. And their heroic charge probably saved a
> lot
>>>of American lives, by disordering the attack and given the US forces time
> to
>>>escape and get planes into the air, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Please forgive my error.....I meant Crown of Slaves.....
>>
>>As I have said, if Manticore has a thing about Slavers and Pirates, I
>>frigate Squadron in Silesia would be quite fun to read about.
>>
>>pops
>
> It would more likely be a DD squadron, but no arguments otherwise.
>
> Actually, given the division of Silesia between Manticore and the
> Andermani,
> it might be interesting to have a nice novella about the new situation in
> Silesia.
>
>

With a bunch of new characters fresh out of school under new commanders.
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

"Taki Kogoma" <quirk.DeleteThis@swcp.com> wrote in message
news:e2qs7a$mm8$1@iruka.swcp.com...
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 18:10:55 -0700, Offbreed <offbreed_106.DeleteThis@hotmail.com>
> allegedly declared to alt.books.david-weber...
>>forkliftramp.com wrote:
>>
>>> isn't the major distinction between frigates and destroyers their
>>> role? frigates being primarily anti sub and destroyers being anti air
>>> or surface.
>>
>>I though "Destroyer" was short for "Submarine Destroyer". It's a pretty
>>new class of ship (present era), while "Frigate" goes way back.
>
> "Torpedo boat destroyer"; they were meant as a small, agile platform
> to screen the battle line from troepdo boats.
>
> One problem we're facing here is the evolution of names/missions of
> naval units over the centuries, and MWW's decision to try to apply early
> 20th C. nomenclature to what started as a quasi-Nelsonian paradigm
> that itself is rapidly evolving. Another problem is trying to use
> 'modern' ship types as one-to-one correspondance with what is in the
> Honorverse; the distinction between "frigate", "destroyer", and
> "cruiser" in the modern navy is getting increasingly muddled.
>
> The sailing-era "frigate" was the equivalent of the turn-of-the-20th-
> century cruiser. A Honorverse frigate strikes me as the equivalent of
> a sailing era sixth-rate or 20-gun Post Ship (at a time when most navies
> had moved to 5th rates or even 4th rates for screening units.)
>
> The development of destroyer-escorts, corvettes, frigates, etc. for
> anti-submarine work is based on the need for as many sensor platforms
> as possible as quickly as possible as economically as possible; crew
> requirements weren't really an issue, unlike the bottleneck faced by
> the RMN BuPers. Also, there is no corresponding "submarine" threat in
> the Honorverse. (Relatively short-ranged, very powerful offensive
> capability, extremely stealthy, generally immue to most 'conventional'
> ttack modes.)
>
> The anti-LAC and missile-defense missions have been discussed ad
> nauseum and may or may not result in their own specialized units
> analogous to modern air-defense platforms, but that's another mega-
> thread.
>
> The reason why most 'advanced' Honorverse space navies abandoned
> Frigates in favor of destroyers is that a frigate requires almost the
> same logistical requirements of a DD in terms of personnel and support
> capacity, but with only 75% or so of the capability. If *all* you are
> worried about is piracy suppression, then it may be practical to
> build frigates, but given all the missions required of small hyper-
> capable combatants, destroyers are a better all-around buy.

On the reverse side if you are only concerned about in system defense as
seems to have beeen true of several very weak systems you might leave of the
hyper capible off a DD and make a frigite for in system that could eat most
DD depending on how well you could equip it. Just a passing thought but such
systems did get passing mention.


>
> --
> Capt. Gym Z. Quirk (Known to some as Taki Kogoma) quirk @ swcp.com
> Just an article detector on the Information Supercollider.
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

Jeffrey MacHott wrote:
>
> "Frigate" as we now use it only goes back to about WWII. At various
> points in history, Frigates could also be equivilant to cruisers or
> battleships, depending on the definition. Apparantly the word "Frigate"
> goes back to an Old English word for "Boat".

Uh, no. The Old English word would be "bat" (boat) or "scip"
(ship), or some more poetic usages like "flota" (literally, floater) or
"brimhengest" (ocean-horse). "Frigate" is from French.

--
John Campbell
jcampbel.DeleteThis@lynn.ci-n.com
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates 

"forkliftramp.com" <Brian_knowspam.McDonald.TakeThisOut@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:i9m25250jl12qj4nvuvkfek2hfljpejivc@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:41:14 +0000 (UTC), quirk.TakeThisOut@swcp.com (Taki Kogoma)
> wrote:
>
>>The reason why most 'advanced' Honorverse space navies abandoned
>>Frigates in favor of destroyers is that a frigate requires almost the
>>same logistical requirements of a DD in terms of personnel and support
>>capacity, but with only 75% or so of the capability. If *all* you are
>>worried about is piracy suppression, then it may be practical to
>>build frigates, but given all the missions required of small hyper-
>>capable combatants, destroyers are a better all-around buy.
>
>
> even for antipiracy work in these areas a frigate is pretty lightly
> armed. doesn't seem to be any real shortage of slightly used ex
> havenite warships out there these days.

And then you have a slew of armed merchants some of which are owned by slave
runners. Running around without weapons seems to have been a very bad idea
over large regions of space.
 >> Stay informed about: Crown of Swords and Frigates