Classification/taxonomy of military ships - websites and books

[Hammer Birchgrove]

Does anyone know one or more good websites and/or books about how military ships get classified (not as in being kept in secret)?

 

[TomS]

The unspoken assumption is that there's a consistent set of rules. There really isn't; designations have been applied with varying degrees of rigor over time and the meanings of specific designations change often with technology and fashion.

The evolution of the US "system" is described in some detail here but other nations have done things very differently. The only time in the modern era (since the mid 1800s) that there were really firm rules was the brief window of the naval arms control period (1922-1939, roughly) when ship types were carefully defined for treaty purposes.

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

Thanks TomS.

 

[Jemiba]

Maybe what you are looking for is a kind of classification, as can be found
in the "Weyers Warships of the World Fleet Handbook" ?

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

Maybe what you are looking for is a kind of classification, as can be found
in the "Weyers Warships of the World Fleet Handbook" ?

I'll see if I can find it, thanks.

 

[Jemiba]

IIRC, it was printed on a kind of bookmarker, attached to every volume. Will have a look
this evening and copy an example. Classification was (or is), I think in a 2 to 3-letter-code,
e.g. CG (Cruiser, guided missile), CGN (Cruiser, nuclear powered, guided missile).

 

[Yellow Palace]

IIRC, it was printed on a kind of bookmarker, attached to every volume. Will have a look
this evening and copy an example. Classification was (or is), I think in a 2 to 3-letter-code,
e.g. CG (Cruiser, guided missile), CGN (Cruiser, nuclear powered, guided missile).

That would be the USN hull classification symbols, which were devised for the use of the USN, and rely on an understanding of what ships are. Most modern usages of this system are chronically inept: I advocate cruel and unusual punishment for those in the UK MoD who insist on referring to a 'Landing Platform Dock' or 'Landing Platform Helicopter' because the USN hull designations are LPD (for an amphibious transport dock) or LPH (for a helicopter-operating amphibious transport). I would like to invite such people to explain what 'CVGN' or 'AGBN' would stand for, both of which are sensible designations for extant or proposed Russian ships.

Anyway, my copy of Combat Fleets defines the following, truncating heavily:

Cruiser: Large surface combatants equipped with a major command, control and communications capability in addition to major weapons systems....
Destoryer: Major surface combatants ... generally intended to perform supporting roles in a group of combatants centered on cruiser or carrier forces....
Frigate: Surface combatants with weapons systems tailored toward one specific role, such as antisubmarine warfare [or] ships with lesser capabilities and of generally smaller size than a destroyer.

The full set of descriptions takes about two pages of about A4 size and in fairly small font, so (quite apart from copyright issues) I'm not going to try replicating it here.

Historically, a cruiser was considered to be a ship with a level of accomodation, provisions and complement sufficient to permit independent operations - cruises - of a significant length of time. This means that one of the defining characteristics of a true cruiser in the early-mid 20th century is comprehensive medical facilities. The USN hasn't built a cruiser since the Long Beach - the later CGNs were actually big frigates, in the old USN definition of frigates as big, well-armed destroyers, and the Ticonderoga class are of course a growth variant of the Spruance class and were originally to be numbered in the DDG sequence, with the same hull numbers.

Edit: If you really want a headache, try figuring out what a 'frigate' is. Offhand, I can think of at least four definitions that have been used in the last century, ranging from some of the biggest ships of their day to some of the smallest. 'Corvette' is just as bad, although I don't think it's ever been applied to big, well-armed ships.

 

[Antonio]

If you really want a headache, try figuring out what a 'frigate' is

I agree and I suggest the following to avoid headaches:

Don't try to apply a taxonomical approach because your subject of study doesn't accept it. You can't define what a frigate is because this term has been used to designate different kinds of ship in different historical periods, and sometimes in different contries.

Another example is the term "destroyer". Their original role was to defend the fleet (battleships and cruisers) from torpedo boat attack, but later they quickly evolved into different roles and shapes. To go a step further into confussion, Europe, living in a social fantasy called the "political correction" will see Germany going to change the names of their ship categories to avoid agressive names like "Destroyer".

 

[Anderman]

Another example is the imperial german navy called their destroyers großes torpedoboot, large torpedoboat, well quite larger ...... ;D

http://www.german-navy.de/hochseeflotte/ships/torpedoboats/gtb1916/tech.html

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

IIRC, it was printed on a kind of bookmarker, attached to every volume. Will have a look
this evening and copy an example. Classification was (or is), I think in a 2 to 3-letter-code,
e.g. CG (Cruiser, guided missile), CGN (Cruiser, nuclear powered, guided missile).

Sounds neat, my Salamander book about modern submarines have a similar code list (but not as a book marker).

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

If you really want a headache, try figuring out what a 'frigate' is

I agree and I suggest the following to avoid headaches:

Don't try to apply a taxonomical approach because your subject of study doesn't accept it.

Well, my paper is supposed to be about taxonomy, and it's too late to change it to something else (like tanks, or aircrafts; in hindsight, I should have written about either of those instead...). :-\

You can't define what a frigate is because this term has been used to designate different kinds of ship in different historical periods, and sometimes in different countries.

Luckily, I will not write about destroyers, corvettes and/or frigates (especially after you've pointed out the difficulties in using taxonomy for them). If I understand my books correctly, frigates in US Navy are larger than destroyers, while "in the rest of the world", they are between corvettes and destroyers.

Another example is the term "destroyer". Their original role was to defend the fleet (battleships and cruisers) from torpedo boat attack, but later they quickly evolved into different roles and shapes.

Speaking of torpedo boats and destroyers: I thought their developments were pretty straight forward; instead, I see now that there were several sub-types depending on requirements of speed, range, weight etc, even what company/shipyard built them made a difference.

To go a step further into confusion, Europe, living in a social fantasy called the "political correction" will see Germany going to change the names of their ship categories to avoid aggressive names like "Destroyer".

Le gasp! Won't somebody stop this foolness! :

I guess calling them "hunters"/"jaeger schiff" (in Swedish, destroyers are called "jagare") would be too aggressive as well... I guess "medium class escort vessel" would be all right.

 

[Antonio]

I guess "medium class escort vessel" would be all right.

Not a bad name

If I understand my books correctly, frigates in US Navy are larger than destroyers, while "in the rest of the world", they are between corvettes and destroyers.

I share the same opinion. In fact I think the USN initial frigate term comes from the similarity in their role with the sail ship era frigate. DE's were the USN equivalent to RoW frigates. Later DE were reclassified as frigates. And frigates reclassified as cruisers.

I see now that there were several sub-types depending on requirements of speed, range, weight etc, even what company/shipyard built them made a difference.

In the interwar period, for instance, some flotilla leader destroyers grew enough to act as light cruisers

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

Thanks everyone.

BTW, is a "super-dreadnought -battleship" the same as a "super-battleship"? Is "super-battleship" even a proper description for a certain class? (Have seen the latter been used in relation to the Yamato class and the Ohio class of battleships.) ???

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

I guess "medium class escort vessel" would be all right.

Not a bad name

Thanks. ;D

Perhaps I should post a letter and also suggest to name this new class the "James Cameron"-class, to further please the hippies, and make the airmen and soldiers shout to the poor sailors "Dancing with smurfs, yet?". OK, that was too evil.

If I understand my books correctly, frigates in US Navy are larger than destroyers, while "in the rest of the world", they are between corvettes and destroyers.

I share the same opinion. In fact I think the USN initial frigate term comes from the similarity in their role with the sail ship era frigate.

That makes sort of sense.

DE's were the USN equivalent to RoW frigates. Later DE were reclassified as frigates. And frigates reclassified as cruisers.

I assume DE stand for destroyer, buy what means RoW?

I see now that there were several sub-types depending on requirements of speed, range, weight etc, even what company/shipyard built them made a difference.

In the interwar period, for instance, some flotilla leader destroyers grew enough to act as light cruisers

I can understand that they could and would develop that way, but wouldn't the various treaties be a hindrance? Or was it just already large ships like battleships and battlecruisers that were limited?

 

[Antonio]

is a "super-dreadnought -battleship" the same as a "super-battleship"? Is "super-battleship" even a proper description for a certain class?

I've heard "super-dreadnought -battleship" description associated to HMS Agincourt (1913) and "super-battleship" to Yamato class.

I don't think that could be considered categories on its own. That terms were assigned to that ships because superior firepower to their contemporaries. However, HMS Agincourt was quickly surpased and equivalent or even mightier than Yamato designs existed in form of unbuilt projects.

 

[Antonio]

I assume DE stand for destroyer, buy what means RoW?

I'm sorry for that "SMS-like post"

DE stands for Destroyer Escort

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_destroyer_escorts_of_the_United_States_Navy

RoW: Rest of the World

 

[Antonio]

I can understand that they could and would develop that way, but wouldn't the various treaties be a hindrance? Or was it just already large ships like battleships and battlecruisers that were limited?

Interwar treaties limited battleships, battlecruisers and heavy cruisers (10,000 t / 203 mm guns). Fleet tonnage was limited. I'm almost sure that destroyers suffered no limitations in displacement/weapons.

I did a quick search into my books; French class Le Fantasque was designated as "super-destroyer" at 3,300 t. Contemporary light cruisers used as destroyer flotilla leaders are the Japanese Yubari (4,075 t) and the bigger Italian Capitani Romani class (5.420 t)

 

[Hoo-2b-2day]

In reality, other than during the treaty years (1922-1939) most navies have classified ships according to their own policies though the nature of a ship may place it in a overall catagory such as a battleship or submarine. Confusion often comes about through either other navies or the media trying to fit some vessel's into categories that suit there own perception:

The Dunkerque class (1933-42) were considered by the French to be batiments de ligne - AKA battleship, but many, if not most, publication refer to these as battlecruisers,

The Deutschland/Graf Spee ships were originally classed as Panzerschiffs (armoured ships) by the germans and latter more realistically classified as heavy cruisers. The media still call them pocket battleships and many publication have them listed with the capital ships.

The US navy has always referred to the Alaska class as large cruiser, which based on their design characteristics is justified yet they are often called battlecruisers.

Ships of similar characteristics in different navies may be classified as destroyers, destroyer escorts, escort destroyers, torpedo boats etc.

Added to the above issues is as naval designs have evolved through time so the the use of classification titles have changed such as pometablava noted the large variations in what has or now does constitute a "frigate".

The only rules are those that relate to any specific navy at any specific time.

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

Thanks guys, very helpful of you.

 

[Yellow Palace]

When looking at the Treaty years, just to confuse matters even more, what were later called 'heavy' cruisers (10,000 ton/8" guns) were originally called 'light' cruisers. Destroyers are actually quite easy to trace: originally designed to defend the fleet against torpedo boats, they then took on the role of torpedo attack themselves because the smaller boats weren't seaworthy enough. When air and submarine threats came along, it was natural to give the destroyers the task of protecting the fleet from these as well. Post-WWII, the torpedo attack became redundant, and the AAW/ASW tasks became sufficiently demanding that hulls had to get bigger - creating the US DL series - or specialise in one role only, providing the basis for US DD/DDG series, and European destroyers/frigates. The European navies didn't really go in for the slower DE-type ships post-WWII except possibly for the Type 14: the Type 15 and Type 18 frigates were actually converted destroyers.

Thanks everyone.

BTW, is a "super-dreadnought -battleship" the same as a "super-battleship"? Is "super-battleship" even a proper description for a certain class? (Have seen the latter been used in relation to the Yamato class and the Ohio class of battleships.) ???

'Super-dreadnought' was originally used to refer to the 13.5" gunned battleships of the Royal Navy, as they were a similar idea to the original Dreadnought, except bigger and more heavily armed. 'Super-battleship' seems to be one of those phrases which people will always use to describe something bigger and better than the current battleships, whether realistic or not.

For that matter, what was the Ohio class of battleship? Do you mean the Montana class?

 

[Antonio]

RLBH, thanks for your excellent post.

I've just take a look at wikipedia for destroyer origins and they are quite informative:

Torpedo boat origins

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo_boat

Germans used torpedo boats in their original concept until WWII

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_torpedoboats_of_World_War_II
http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/torpedoboats/index.html

...and the story of the Torpedo Boat Destroyer (later shortened to Destroyer)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyer

 

[Antonio]

Still more confussion, read about USS Norfolk DL-1, ex CLK-1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Norfolk_(DL-1)

It was followed by the Mistcher class which I remember to be refered somewere as frigate (need to do some research in my books):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Mitscher_(DL-2)

Those early DL are quite comparable to Le Fantasque/Capitani Romani classes.

That's also interesting, please look at the ships included here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Navy_destroyer_leaders

 

[Jemiba]

Confusion about the term "frigate" already started in the 19th century, I think.
Capital ships still was the "ship of the line, 1./2./3. rate", dependent on the number
of guns (60 for 3.rate, up to 130 for 1.rate ships of the line). With the use of armoured
hulls, much fewer guns could be installed, so that the new iron clads like Warrior or
Gloire principally had to be counted as frigates. But nevertheless, they had a much
higher fighting potential, than the old "wooden walls" and turned out to be the new
capital ships.
To make matters worse, at least in the Imperial German Navy, some armoured frigates
were modified at about the turn of the centuries and then classified as "Große Kreuzer"
(large cruisers).

 

[Anderman]

Are you sure Jemiba, the term Großer Kreuzer was used by Tirpitz to use money from cruiser budget to build battle cruiser which were as large as the battle ships. So i am surprised that this term was used before that.

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

When looking at the Treaty years, just to confuse matters even more, what were later called 'heavy' cruisers (10,000 ton/8" guns) were originally called 'light' cruisers. Destroyers are actually quite easy to trace: originally designed to defend the fleet against torpedo boats, they then took on the role of torpedo attack themselves because the smaller boats weren't seaworthy enough. When air and submarine threats came along, it was natural to give the destroyers the task of protecting the fleet from these as well. Post-WWII, the torpedo attack became redundant, and the AAW/ASW tasks became sufficiently demanding that hulls had to get bigger - creating the US DL series - or specialise in one role only, providing the basis for US DD/DDG series, and European destroyers/frigates. The European navies didn't really go in for the slower DE-type ships post-WWII except possibly for the Type 14: the Type 15 and Type 18 frigates were actually converted destroyers.

Thanks everyone.

BTW, is a "super-dreadnought -battleship" the same as a "super-battleship"? Is "super-battleship" even a proper description for a certain class? (Have seen the latter been used in relation to the Yamato class and the Ohio class of battleships.) ???

'Super-dreadnought' was originally used to refer to the 13.5" gunned battleships of the Royal Navy, as they were a similar idea to the original Dreadnought, except bigger and more heavily armed. 'Super-battleship' seems to be one of those phrases which people will always use to describe something bigger and better than the current battleships, whether realistic or not.

For that matter, what was the Ohio class of battleship? Do you mean the Montana class?

Doh! I actually meant the Iowa class battleship.

Thanks for the replies guys.

 

[Jemiba]

Are you sure Jemiba, the term Großer Kreuzer was used by Tirpitz to use money from cruiser budget to build battle cruiser which were as large as the battle ships. So i am surprised that this term was used before that.

The term was used quite long before, for example for the SMS König Wilhelm, built 1865 as armoure frigate
and rebuilt as "Großer Kreuzer" during 1897.

 

[Anderman]

Thx Jemiba i didn´t know that

Atleast the SMS König Wilhelm got some more guns to become a Großer Kreuzer

 

[Jemiba]

Here's the mentioned list of classifications from "Weyers Warships of the World Fleet Handbook" .
BTW, I have looked up in Erich Gröner "Die deutschen Kriegsschiffe 1815 - 1945", The former
Kasemattschiffe (casemate ships, armoured capital ships) SMS Kaiser and Deutschland, built
1871/72 were re-classified 1895/97 as "Große Kreuzer", too (Those two and the aforementioned
König Wilhelm actually were of limited value after rebuilding and mainly used for colonial duties
and as training ships). Generally, since 1898 (SMS Prinz Heinrich) the german term "Großer Kreuzer"
was the equivalent to the british term "armoured cruiser", the SMS Fürst Bismarck still was designated
"Kreuzer 1.Classe" (cruiser 1st class), when laid down.

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

Thanks Jemiba

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

I must : at myself; I've been confused for a month about the dates for HMS Ark Royal, but now I realised that I must have confused the HMS Ark Royal (91) that was ordered 1934 and sunk 1941 with the HMS Ark Royal (R09) that was ordered mid-42 and decommissioned 1978.

Anyone knows when Royal Navy started with the policy/tradition of "reincarnating" ships' names, and if there was a rationale for it? ???

 

[Grey Havoc]

WWI, I think. IIRC, there was even one case during that war where the British 'kept' a warship in existence for quite sometime after it had been sunk! Partly as a counter-intelligence manoeuvre and, even more importantly, for propaganda/morale purposes. The Americans were a particular concern in this regard (it was before they joined the war). The British went to a lot of trouble to keep the illusion alive. Now what was it's name!

 

[TomS]

The RN has been reusing famous ship names for about as long as the service has existed (and the practice probably predates the actual RN proper). The "why" seems fairly intuitive -- famous ships are good for morale (within the service, against opponents, and even with civilians), so when an old ship of good repute goes away, using the name again on a new ship carries over some of those memories and associations.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Sorry, misread the question.

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

Thanks guys.

 

[Jemiba]

"...famous ships are good for morale..."
And the RN seldom made the error of giving ships names of persons, I think, a
practice that can lead to criticism, especially if those persons had belonged
to a, let's say doubtful era. I remember some comments about the christening
ceremonies of the first guided missile destroyers of the FRG, the "Mölders" , "Lütjens"
and "Rommel". Don't think, that those names will be given to a ship again in the
foreseeable future, as well as "Wilhelm Piek" or "Walter Ulbricht". ;D

"Now what was it's name!"
Do you meant HMS Audacious ?

 

[blackstar]

WWI, I think. IIRC, there was even one case during that war where the British 'kept' a warship in existence for quite sometime after it had been sunk! Partly as a counter-intelligence manoeuvre and, even more importantly, for propaganda/morale purposes. The Americans were a particular concern in this regard (it was before they joined the war). The British went to a lot of trouble to keep the illusion alive. Now what was it's name!

Wow, Google is my friend!

I typed in "British battleship sunk Ireland mine" and came up with HMS Audacious:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Audacious_%281912%29

It's a great story. While the ship was sinking, a cruise liner came along and people took pictures. Although the British government classified the sinking, they could not prevent the tourists with cameras from sharing the photos when they got back to the United States (see below). So the story got out. The History Channel did an episode on it for Deep Wreck Mysteries which was pretty interesting.