Fleet composition- another example from the past

> Rob Paul wrote:

> The comparitive lack of "escort" types is notable- no means for little

*eyebrows* Never played with Missle Destroyers, have you?

----Original Message Follows----
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 13:16:47 -0500
From: "John M. Atkinson" <john.m.atkinson@erols.com>
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: Fleet composition- another example from the past
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU

> Rob Paul wrote:

> The comparitive lack of "escort" types is notable- no means for little

ships
> to thump the big ships at sea. I think that's quite like the current

*eyebrows* Never played with Missle Destroyers, have you?

John M. Atkinson

Here's a summary of the RN in 1804, with some suggested FT equivalents:
1st Rates:  100-120 guns, SDN
10;  3-gundeck ships of the line

2nd Rates:   90- 98 guns, BDN->SDN
21;  typically 98, 3-gundeck ships of the line

3rd Rates:   64- 84 guns,  BC->BB
158(!) typically 74, 2-gundeck ships of the line

4th Rates:   50- 60 guns   BC
27; typically 50, 2-gundeck ships of the line (obsolete)

5th Rates:   32- 46 guns   CE->CA
164; 1-gundeck frigate

6th Rates:   14- 30 guns   DD->CL
192; typically 14-20, 1-gundeck frigates, sloops, brigs.

Unrated:                   SC->FF; Ortillery; Amphib vessels
154; "Transports, Bomb Vessels, Cutters and other small vessels"

The comparitive lack of "escort" types is notable- no means for little
ships to thump the big ships at sea. I think that's quite like the current FT
situation.

The source is an old print, reproduced in "Nelson's Navy"

Rob

> jim clem wrote:

> DDGs? Why bother with something that large? A couple of Nanuchkas