Talk:List of sailing frigates of the United States Navy

Question
Not to be pedantic, but aren't all frigates "sailing" frigates? RickK 05:35 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * No, because you also have the modern "frigates", which are like small destroyers, hull symbol FFG. Frigate has a bit of info about them, down near the end. Stan 06:10 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Royal Navy fighting directions
I removed the "fighting directions" claim, as no such order was given. Luck, the size and skill of crews, and weather conditions were all additional complicating factors that made a simple comparison of the gun size and scantling thickness meaningless, and the British Admiralty knew that. Sloops have deliberately attacked heavy-frigates and won, given the right conditions, and it would be take the initiative away from captains. Additionally, he vast majority of battles in that area were one-on-one. For example, the USS Chesapeake was defeated in a mutually sought battle against the HMS Shannon Therealhazel 01:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The fighting instruction in question referred to the American 44s, not to the smaller Chesapeake, etc. It's substantiated in Canney's Sailing Warships of the US Navy. That said, it doesn't seem relevant here. --Columbia clipper (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Classes?
Why are these frigates listed in classes? I may be mistaken, but that seems pretty anachronistic. Ships in those days were not thought of in terms of classes - for example, I've never heard of the original 44-gun frigates referred to as "United States Class" ships in period literature. I assume this "classing" of frigates is a modern innovation, but it doesn't seem particularly helpful. It gives an impression of uniformity that wasn't there - each ship built in that period had its own individual characteristics (compare the sailing qualities of the United States and the President) even if they were built to a similar plan. On the other hand, classifying ships in terms of the number of guns they had makes more sense to me, and was the system in use at the time. Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The concept of ship classes is anachronistic, but technically correct. A ship class, regardless of era, consists of "all ships of essentially the same design."1  Modern publications have come to list ships of earlier periods according to this admittedly latter-day convention.


 * Presently, the gun strengths of the sundry vessels are not listed because of their variance in official documents. The Constitution, for instance, was listed as 44 guns when constructed, but was rated as 50 guns by 1853.


 * 1Wikipedia, is, unfortunately the only source I can find which explicitly defines "ship class" (at both class and ship class), despite widespread use of the term with the definition this encyclopedia indicates.--Columbia clipper (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * According to a Navy Times article excerpted here (the original piece is no longer available online), A.D. Baker, editor of the U.S. Naval Institute's Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World from 1977 to 2002, defined ship class in this way: "'Class' means design, characteristics, dimensions, appearance . . . it has nothing to do with type." --Columbia clipper (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)